Costs: Appeal court backs Merrix stance on budget status – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 22nd, 2017 in budgets, civil procedure rules, costs, news, proportionality by tracey

‘An approved budget cannot be re-opened by a costs judge at detailed assessment unless there is “good reason” to do so, the Court of Appeal held today in a much-awaited ruling in Harrison v University Hospitals Coventry & Warwickshire NHS Trust.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 21st June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Revealed: Jackson’s fixed fees pilot to cap costs at £80k – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 21st, 2017 in civil justice, civil procedure rules, costs, judges, news, pilot schemes by sally

‘Pointers for the potential level of fixed costs for civil claims have been revealed on the eve of a pilot scheme to test how the idea will work.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 20th June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Rule committee should look at gap in QOCS exception, says High Court judge – Litigation Futures

Posted June 20th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by sally

‘The Civil Procedure Rule Committee may need to address a hole in the exception from qualified one-way costs-shifting (QOCS) that meant defendants in a personal injury claim could not seek their costs because service of the claim had been set aside, rather than struck out, a High Court judge has ruled.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 19th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Judge punishes firm that placed ‘scant importance’ on court orders – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted June 15th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, delay, law firms, news, striking out by sally

‘The High Court has refused a personal injury firm relief from sanctions after an excoriating analysis of its non-compliance with court orders.’

Full Story

Law Society's Gazette, 13th June 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

Claimant firm castigated for “procedural chaos” that saw case struck out – Litigation Futures

‘A claimant law firm that allowed a straightforward and relatively low-value road traffic accident claim to descend into “procedural chaos” has seen it struck out by the High Court.’

Full Story

Litigation Futures, 13th June 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Rule 44. 11 – Court’s powers in relation to misconduct – 4 KBW

‘Part 44 of the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2013 (SI 2013/262) was re-enacted on 1st April 2013 and concerns the court’s powers in relation to misconduct. incur Where a party (a) fails to comply with a court rule in assessment or summary proceedings, or (b) acts unreasonably or improperly before or during proceedings the court may disallow all or part of the costs which are being assessed or order the party at fault or that party’s legal representative to pay costs which that party or legal representative has caused any other party to incur. The misconduct extends to the legal representative of a party as well as to the party personally and includes both summary assessment and detailed assessment proceedings and refers to any failure to comply with the provisions of Part 47 and any direction, rule, practice direction or court order.’

Full Story

4 KBW, 2nd June 2017

Source: www.4kbw.net

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) – WLR Daily

Posted June 7th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, insurance, law reports, third parties by sally

In re RBS rights issue litigation (No 2) [2017] EWHC 1217 (Ch)

‘Subsequent to the defendant bank and its directors having learnt of the identity of the third party funders of the claimants following a successful application made under CPR r 25.14, the defendants sought security for costs pursuant to CPR r 25.14(2)(b) against those funders. That application was prompted by settlements with some of the original claimants, as a result of which the remaining claimants’ exposure to adverse costs increased, and by the defendants learning that the claimants did not have adequate after-the-event (“ATE”) insurance cover in place. The first respondent, a commercial funder and British Virgin Islands entity, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) its financial position was such that it would be well able to meet any award for costs and in any event the defendants had not demonstrated that the claimants would fail to meet a costs award against them; and (b) the application was made extremely late and therefore caused it and the claimants real prejudice. The second respondent, an Isle of Man entity that was not in the business of litigation funding and provided funding close to the eve of trial, opposed the application on the grounds that: (a) it was unlikely that a section 51 order would be made against it in due course; and (b) no security was justified or necessary on the evidence and the timing was oppressive. Both respondents also argued that: (c) the quantum of security sought was excessive.’

WLR Daily, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.iclr.co.uk

Online courts take the stage – New Law Journal

Posted May 31st, 2017 in civil procedure rules, courts, electronic filing, news by sally

‘Masood Ahmed & Claire Pennells consider pre-action protocols & the Briggs online court.’

Full Story

New Law Journal, 19th May 2017

Source: www.newlawjournal.co.uk

Mercantile courts to trial fixed costs from later this year – OUT-LAW.com

Posted May 24th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, courts, judges, news, pilot schemes by sally

‘A fixed costs pilot scheme could get underway in the mercantile courts by the end of this year, according to minutes from recent meetings of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee (CPRC).’

Full story

OUT-LAW.com, 23rd May 2017

Source: www.out-law.com

Court of Appeal backs claimant solicitors in “£400 club” case – Litigation Futures

‘Solicitors who received the £400 stage 1 fixed-costs payment due under the original version of the RTA protocol do not have to repay the money even though no action was then taken on their cases, the Court of Appeal has ruled.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 16th May 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Disclosure and production in construction cases – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, construction industry, disclosure by sally

‘The evolution of the CPR in the wake of the Jackson reforms included the well-known introduction of the “menu” of disclosure options at CPR 31.5(7). The net effect was to promote, as appropriate and applicable, a movement away from well-established “standard” disclosure to a more tailored approach. With the accompanying provisions of CPR 31 and its Practice Directions, the new approach to disclosure was designed to force parties (and the courts) to consider disclosure and production (and the best approach to adopt) at a very early stage.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 5th May 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Staying proceedings against “a necessary and proper party”: A pragmatic approach – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, jurisdiction, news, stay of proceedings by sally

‘English courts are averse to the risk of parallel litigation in multiple jurisdictions. For this reason, where an English defendant is correctly sued in England, foreign domiciled defendants who are necessary and proper parties to the claim are commonly brought into the English court’s jurisdiction.’

Full story (PDF)

Hardwicke Chambers, 3rd May 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

A Stitch in Time Saves Nine – Hardwicke Chambers

Posted May 16th, 2017 in amendments, civil justice, civil procedure rules, news, time limits by sally

‘In the well-known case of Cobbold v London Borough of Greenwich (LTL 24/5/2001) Gibson LJ said:

‘The overriding objective (of the CPR) is that the court should deal with cases justly. That includes, so far as is practicable, ensuring that each case is dealt with not only expeditiously but also fairly. Amendments in general ought to be allowed so that the real dispute between the parties can be adjudicated upon provided that any prejudice to the other party or parties caused by the amendment can be compensated in costs, and the public interest in the efficient administration of justice is not significantly harmed…’.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 11th April 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Civil procedure: Unreasonable conduct and costs – Law Society’s Gazette

Posted May 15th, 2017 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, news, small claims by sally

‘It is trite that a court will carefully scrutinise the parties’ behaviour when assessing costs in civil disputes. There is now a rich body of case law which provides judicial guidance on the courts’ general approach in assessing unreasonable behaviour when considering whether to make adverse costs orders. Further judicial guidance on assessing unreasonable behaviour has recently been given by the Court of Appeal in Dammermann v Lanyon Bowdler LLP [2017] EWCA Civ 269. In that case the court provided important guidance on the ‘unreasonable behaviour’ test for ordering costs in the small claims court.’

Full story

Law Society’s Gazette, 15th May 2017

Source: www.lawgazette.co.uk

High Court upholds decision to disapply QOCS in ‘mixed’ claim – Litigation Futures

Posted May 9th, 2017 in civil procedure rules, costs, news, personal injuries by tracey

‘The High Court has upheld a ruling that disapplied qualified one-way costs-shifting (QOCS) under the little-used exception relating to “mixed” claims, and in what is said to be the first case of its type, where the personal injury (PI) element was found to be a relatively minor part of the wider claim.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 9th May 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

CA offers pointers on when costs should be awarded in small claims court – Litigation Futures

Posted April 19th, 2017 in appeals, civil procedure rules, costs, judges, news, small claims by tracey

‘The “unreasonable conduct” test for ordering costs in the small claims court is similar to that for wasted costs, the Court of Appeal has ruled, but said it would not want litigants to be “too easily deterred” by the risk of an adverse costs award.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 18th April 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com

Primeview Developments Ltd v Ahmed – Arden Chambers

‘The Upper Tribunal (Lands Chamber) has held that it is was not unreasonable conduct for the purposes of r.13(1)(b), Tribunal Procedure Rules, for a landlord to seek to rely on an agreement that service charges were payable, even if that agreement was subsequently determined to be void. Nor did the landlord’s failure to mediate amount to unreasonable conduct in circumstances where the prospects of a reaching an agreement were slight and the costs of mediation likely to be disproportionate. It also held that orders pursuant to s.20C, Landlord and Tenant Act 1985, should not treat participating leaseholders differently from one another on the basis of their involvement in proceedings. The focus should be on the landlord’s degree of success regardless of each individual leaseholder’s involvement.’

Full story

Arden Chambers, 3rd March 2017

Source: www.ardenchambers.com

Rule 16.3(7) – Statement of under value to be included in the claim form? – 4 KBW

‘Sir David Eady J delivered a judgment on 30 March in the case of Mohamed Ali Harrath v Stand for Peace Limited and Samuel Westrop [2017] EWHC 653 (QB) (available here) in which he held that a claimant is entitled to recover damages that exceed the statement of value included in the claim form.’

Full story

4 KBW, 30th March 2017

Source: www.4kbw.net

The more things change, the more they stay the same – Hardwicke Chambers

‘Every time we think the courts might have given defendants in adjudication enforcement proceedings slightly more latitude in raising their dissatisfaction with an adjudicator’s decision, the court brings us back down to earth with a bump and reminds us that, in fact, no matter how hard done by our clients feel, they will have to “pay now and argue later”, save in the rarest of cases.’

Full story

Hardwicke Chambers, 27th March 2017

Source: www.hardwicke.co.uk

Rule committee backs moves to increase take-up of expert ‘hot-tubbing’ – Litigation Futures

‘Expert witnesses giving concurrent evidence – or ‘hot-tubbing’ – should be the default position in the Mercantile Court and Technology and Construction Court (TCC), the Civil Procedure Rule Committee (CPRC) has suggested.’

Full story

Litigation Futures, 4th April 2017

Source: www.litigationfutures.com